BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1856
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 31, 1998
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION,
GOVERNMENTAL EFFICIENCY, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Susan Davis, Chair
AB 1856 (Vincent) - As Amended: March 24, 1998
SUBJECT : Makes various changes relating to the spaying and
neutering of dogs and cats
SUMMARY : Prohibits breeders, pet shops, rescue groups,
individuals, public pounds, societies for the prevention of
cruelty to animals, and humane shelters from selling or giving
away any cat or dog that has not been spayed or neutered.
Requires specified verification of compliance with applicable
state and local breeding laws when selling a dog or cat that has
not been spayed or neutered. Authorizes breeder registration
programs and the associated collection of fees for such programs.
Requires impounded dogs and cats to be spayed or neutered prior to
their release. Specifically, this bill :
1) States that the legislative intent of the bill is to reduce the
number of unwanted dogs and cats in California. The bill also
states that current law's requirements for spaying and
neutering contain too many exemptions, and the the bill seeks
to eliminate the exemptions, thereby making it more difficult
for unaltered animals to "roam free and reproduce."
2) Prohibits, except as otherwise specified, public pounds,
societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, humane
shelters, breeders, pet shops, rescue groups, or individuals
from selling or giving away any dog or cat that has not been
spayed or neutered.
3) Prohibits any dog or cat under the age of eight weeks from
being spayed or neutered. States that if a dog or cat younger
than eight weeks is to be adopted, the adopter shall pay the
pound, shelter, breeder, pet shop, or rescue group a deposit of
$75. No deposit is required if the dog or cat is obtained from
an individual. The deposit is to be refunded if the adopter
presents proof that the dog or cat has been spayed or neutered
within two months of the animal's eight-week birthday.
Unclaimed deposits may only be used for programs to spay or
neuter dogs and cats, as specified.
4) States that no dog or cat too sick or injured (as certified by
a veterinarian) may be spayed or neutered. If a dog or cat too
sick or injured for spaying or neutering is to be adopted, then
the adopter shall pay the appropriate entity a $75 deposit,
subject to refund if subsequent proof of spay or neuter is
provided.
5) States that the sale or donation of a dog in violation of #2-#4
above by a pound, shelter or rescue group is not subject to
existing statutory penalties of specified fines. Additionally
AB 1856
Page 2
states that the bill does not apply to the initial receipt of a
dog or cat by a public pound, cruelty to animals prevention
society, humane shelter or rescue group.
6) States that a violation of provisions #2-#5 above by a breeder
or
individual is an infraction with a $75 fine for a first offense,
$150 fine for a second offense, $250 fine for a third offense,
$500 fine for a fourth to ninth offense, and a misdemeanor after
the 10th offense.
7) Requires that any person who intends to sell a dog or cat that
has not been spayed or neutered verify that the purchaser is in
compliance with all applicable state or local breeding laws,
regulations, and ordinances.
8) Authorizes a city or county animal control agency to establish,
or enter into a contract to establish, a program requiring the
registration of breeders. The bill also authorizes the
imposition of fees on breeders of dogs and cats for the
administration of such a program.
9) Repeals current law's provision that dog and cat licenses be
sold at a reduced price for dogs and cats that have been spayed
or neutered.
10)Requires that a licensed dog or cat that has been impounded
more than once by specified entities and is not spayed or
neutered shall be spayed or neutered prior to being released
back to the owner; unlicensed dogs or cats may be spayed or
neutered the first time they are impounded. Additionally
indemnifies cities and counties from any civil action by the
owner of a dog or cat that is spayed or neutered in accordance
with this provision.
11)Includes a non-reimbursement of costs disclaimer because the
bill creates a new crime and modifies the penalty for an
infraction.
EXISTING LAW :
1) States that no public pound, society for the prevention of
cruelty to animals, or humane shelter shall sell or give away
any dog or cat that has not been spayed or neutered, unless a
deposit not to exceed $40 for a dog and $30 for a cat is paid,
as specified.
2) States that any dog or cat over six months of age at the time
it is sold or given away by a pound or shelter shall be spayed
or neutered within 60 days , otherwise the deposit mentioned in
#1 above shall be deemed unclaimed. Dogs or cats under six
months of age shall be spayed or neutered within six months .
3) Unclaimed deposits are to be used only for specified purposes,
including education programs about overpopulation of dogs and
cats, spaying and neutering programs, and other related and
AB 1856
Page 3
specified programs.
4) States that whenever dog or cat license tags are issued, such
tags shall be issued at 1/2 price or less if the dog or cat has
been spayed or neutered.
FISCAL EFFECT : No likely state costs; costs will be borne by
cities, local animal control agencies, and private organizations.
The bill includes fee authority for breeding registration
programs.
COMMENTS :
1) Author's Intent
According to the author's office, the intent of the bill is to
end dog and cat overpopulation and reduce the number of animals
killed in shelters and
running loose on the streets. The author's office indicates that
the bill will reduce the number of animals born each year.
Section 1 of the bill states legislative intent that the measure
seeks to eliminate exemptions from existing law that contribute to
cat and dog overpopulation problems.
2) Technical and Definitional Amendments Needed
On page 4, line 24, there is an inadvertent code reference
which should be changed from "31410" to "31401".
On page 5, line 2, the words "and cats." should be added to the
end of the line. This change is consistent with the rest of
the bill.
Additionally, a number of terms used in the bill are either not
defined or not sufficiently cross-referenced to other
definitional code sections. There terms include "breeder",
"rescue group", and "individual", among others.
The author should adopt the suggested technical amendments and
clarify as much as possible the definition of all terms used in
the bill.
3) Relevant Data
Data provided by the author's office for 1996 indicates that of
the 483,295 dogs processed in California shelters, 276,789 were
euthanized, a rate of 57%. Of the 370,585 cats processed in
California shelters, 285,720 were euthanized, a 77% rate. Los
Angeles County accounts for approximately one-fifth of the dogs
and cats both processed in shelters and euthanized. A chart
detailing the number of dogs and cats processed, reclaimed,
adopted, euthanized, and otherwise categorized by California
county is attached to this analysis.
It is unknown what percentage of dogs and cats entering
shelters are already spayed or neutered.
AB 1856
Page 4
Additionally, recent national studies sponsored by the National
Council on Pet Population Study and Policy revealed that moving
and lifestyle issues were the main reasons given by pet owners
when surrendering their animals to shelters. The study
indicates, using 1994 data, that 64% of these pets were
ultimately euthanized. This figure generally corresponds with
the combined California dog and cat numbers listed above, in
which 66% of dogs and cats in California shelters were
eventually euthanized.
A summary of the study quotes that "Of the 70 reasons pet
owners could cite for relinquishing their pets, about 15% said
their animals were ill or old and needed to be euthanized; 7%
said they were moving; 5% felt they had too many animals; 4%
said owning a pet cost too much; and 3.5% said the animals has
soiled the house." The National Council indicated that it
hopes to use this sampled data to develop strategies to cure
the epidemic of pets entering animal shelters.
4) Will the Approach Taken in the Bill Make a Difference ?
The author's office contends that the provisions of the bill
will collectively lead to fewer unwanted animals and fewer
animals on the street that have not been spayed or neutered.
However, no estimate of what reduction is anticipated is
available. Opponents vociferously argue that the strategies
contained in the bill will not be effective.
5) Verification Provision Raises Concerns of Pet Industry
A provision in the bill stating that any person who intends to
sell a dog or cat that has not been spayed or neutered "shall
verify that the purchaser is in compliance with all applicable
state or local breeding laws, regulations, and ordinances" has
raised concerns from pet stores. They are concerned that their
stores will have to take aggressive action in order to
sufficiently "verify" that an individual is in compliance with
applicable laws and regulations. They note that this is the
function of local animal control agencies, and is
inappropriately placed with them. Finally, opponents note that
verification requirements would place California animal sellers
at a "competitive disadvantage" with out of state or foreign
sellers.
The author should review the propriety of this provision, and
may wish to refine it such that the onus is on the purchaser to
indicate that they are in compliance with existing laws and
regulations.
6) Breeder Registration Program Authorization Fairly Broad
The bill includes a provision authorizing local animal control
agencies to establish programs requiring the registration of
breeders, and authorizes the imposition of fees to finance the
administration of such programs.
AB 1856
Page 5
While such a registration program may have some merit,
opponents argue that such authority already exists and is
therefore redundant. Additionally, they note that many
localities have chosen not to use this authority. However,
data supporting this contention has not been provided to the
committee.
The lack of a cap on the fee authority raises questions about
what the appropriate fee amount would be.
The author should minimally provide a reasonable cap for the
fee authority of breeder registration programs, and should
confirm for the committee whether such authority currently
exists.
7) Payment for Spaying and Neutering in Certain Cases Unclear;
Immunity Against Actions Uneven and Overly Broad
The bill includes a provision under which unlicensed dogs or
cats impounded once by relevant entities, or licensed dogs or
cats impounded more than once by such entities shall be spayed
or neutered by the impounding entity prior to being released
back to the owner. The bill also grants cities or counties
immunity from civil action by owners of dogs or cats altered
under these circumstances.
It appears that the impounding entity in question would be
paying for the spaying or neutering service prior to the
re-release of the animal. However, it is unknown how commonly
such an occurrence would be, and whether related costs would be
absorbable by the various impounding entities. Additionally,
it is unclear if all listed impounding entities have the
capability of providing spaying and neutering services.
The immunity provision only indemnifies cities and counties,
but fails to mention the private organizations authorized in
the same section to spay and neuter impounded animals.
Therefore one must conclude that such
private organizations are not immune from civil action. Indeed,
their exclusion may invite civil action from unhappy dog and cat
owners whose animals have been spayed or neutered without their
consent.
The author should explain to the committee the rationale of
these provisions, and may wish to modify the bill to clarify
both the payment capability of impounding authorities and the
immunity or lack thereof for private entities.
8) Should Individuals Have the Right to Obtain an Unaltered Dog or
Cat ?
Fundamental to the bill is the provision that would severely
restrict the ability of pounds, SPCAs, humane shelters,
breeders, pet shops, rescue groups, and individuals to sell or
give away dogs and cats not spayed or neutered. Despite
AB 1856
Page 6
specified exemptions to these provisions detailed in the bill,
it is clear that this would have a significant impact. This
raises the question as to whether an individual has a right to
obtain a dog or cat that has not been spayed or neutered, for
whatever reason.
The author should address this limitation of individual
freedom, and how he sees it actually working in California
communities.
9) At What Age Should a Dog or Cat Be Spayed or Neutered ?
The bill generally requires spaying and neutering of dogs and
cats commencing at the age of 8 weeks. Spaying and neutering
of dogs and cats between the ages of 8 weeks to 4 months is
known as "early age sterilization". According to information
received by the committee, this concept is roughly a decade
old. Supporters of the bill argue that "early age
sterilization" is safe, causes no health or developmental risk
to the young animal, reduces the trauma experienced by the
animal and expedites recovery time. They point to numerous
studies on the subject.
The author and other interested parties should educate the
committee on the issue of "early age sterilization". The
committee may wish to revise the 8 week age provision in the
bill.
10) Enforcement Would Likely Vary Greatly
It appears that enforcement of the bill's provisions would vary
greatly jurisdiction to jurisdiction, as the state essentially
has no formal role in enforcing animal control matters.
Fluctuating enforcement could have unintended consequences on
the impact of the bill to various parts of the state.
The author should address this issue and may wish to amend the
bill to more equitably enforce its provisions.
11) Summary of Supporters' Arguments
Supporters of the bill, listed at the end of this analysis,
generally argue that the pet overpopulation problem is so dire
that only compulsory early spaying and neutering can make a
dent in the thousands of dogs and cats euthanized each year.
Additionally, supporters argue that previous public education
efforts, while helpful, have been wholly insufficient to stem
the overpopulation tide. An individual from the organization
In Defense of Animals states that 1/2 of the City of Los
Angeles' Department of Animal Regulation budget, or
approximately $3.6 million, is spent each
year to handle and euthanize animals. The individual notes that
the average age of these animals is less than two years, and that
one-quarter of the dogs euthanized are purebreds.
12) Summary of Opponents' Arguments
AB 1856
Page 7
Opponents of the bill argue that the bill overstates the
severity of the current problem, and then overreaches in
finding possible solutions. They argue that California's
animal shelter populations have been in long term down trends
for years, and that only certain animals are at risk, due more
to owner characteristics (e.g. younger, more mobile) than to
the animals themselves. Therefore, public education programs
focused on the "at risk" pet owners would be more appropriate.
Opponents also argue that certain provisions of the bill are
constitutionally suspect, as they deprive a pet owners
"property interest [right] in the animal's reproductive
capability." Opponents also note that pet stores and breeders
are not comparable to pounds and shelters, a distinction which
is lost in the bill's enforcement approach.
Some opponents also argue that the real target of legislation
ought to be "puppy mills" and "backyard breeders", but the bill
casts such a wide net that honorable pet enthusiasts will be
significantly impacted as well. Most question whether the bill
will achieve the desired effect of reducing pet euthanization,
which most opponents agree should be reduced.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Animal Birth Control
Animal Protection Institute
Humane Society of San Bernardino Valley, Inc.
Humane Society of the United States
In Defense of Animals
Lake Elsinore Animal Friends (LEAF)
Los Angeles Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
(SPCA)
San Diego Humane Society and SPCA
United Activists for Animal Rights
22 Individuals
Opposition
The American Kennel Club
American Dog Owners Association, Inc.
American Staffordshire Terrier Club of Northern California
American Staffordshire Terrier Representative Organization (ASTRO)
The Animal Council
Animal House, Inc.
Animal Lovers Unlimited, Inc.
Antelope Valley Kennel Club, Inc.
Authentic Bengal Cat League
Barbary Coast Bull Terrier Club
Bijou Bleu Cattery
California Animal Control Directors' Association, Inc.
California Collie Fanciers, Inc.
California Federation of Dog Clubs
AB 1856
Page 8
The Cat Fanciers' Association, Inc.
Dalmation Club of Southern California
Del Sur Kennel Club
Emberain Golden Retrievers
Feather River Dog Training Club
Fresh State Victorian Cat Shelter
Golden Empire Brittany Club
Human/Animal Bond in Society
International Bengal Cat Society
Just Persians Cat Club
Los Colores Cat Club
Malibu Cat Club (Yorba Linda, CA)
Mother Lode Bulldog Club
Nakota Siberians
National Pet Alliance
Northern California Alaskan Malamute Association
Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC)
Pet Pantry, Orange, CA
Pups Are Us Pet Store
San Diego Cat Fanciers
San Francisco Dog Training Club, Inc.
Santa Clara Cat Fancier's Association
Sierra Foothills Dalmatian Club
Two Cities Kennel Club
Western Abyssinian Cat Club
West Shore Shorthair Cat Club
63 Individuals
Analysis prepared by : Robert Herrell / aconpro / (916) 319-2089